The Sphinxes Guarding the Lion Tomb Entrance at Amphipolis

[amyntoros]

This is a photograph of one of the coins found:





It s described as "Find Bronze Coin of Alexander the Great" although that is via the awful Google translation at:

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... rev=search

[Zebedee]

Thanks to those who've provided info past couple of pages, appreciated.

Not personally convinced yet by the link they're making. A heroon for a hero who isn't buried there doesn't quite work for me for some reason - unless the cremation is Hephaistion and then that problem goes away. Can't see the timeline needed to make it work as even something built for someone else and then used for something other than its purpose. Does this really get built in the 8 months between Hephaistion's death and Alexander's? Or completed after Alexander's death so that a monumental lion is placed on top of the hill/mound? And it would seem to dictate that the burials inside are Hephaistion's relatives. If one of the bodies doesn't fit the authorised version's dating, then some creative interpretation will be required.

Very interested still in an explanation of the development of site from initial grave to monumental structure to then being closed off. With refurbishment/s between the latter two stages.

The focus on late 4th century dating is reasonable enough given the brickbats thrown about the dating of the major monument. Just the desire to make a link with Alexander seems a little overkeen with what follows.

[agesilaos]

Some further dating evidence from the foot fetishists

Morrow, ‘Greek Footwear and the Dating of Sculpture’, University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. Pp144-5

‘The most chronologically significant feature of Hellenistic thonged sandals is the sole shape. Beginning in the early third century, an indentation appears between the first two toes. It starts out as a smooth shallow curve and then grows narrower until the end of the second century, when the indentation is no longer curved but is a narrow deep notch.’

caryatid foot.jpg (11.47 KiB) Viewed 3338 times

Typology

sandals 1.png (117.3 KiB) Viewed 3338 times

sandals2.png (109.83 KiB) Viewed 3338 times

will continue with the third typology

[agesilaos]

sandals3.png (111.43 KiB) Viewed 3337 times

From this I think the nearest match is definitely 2b, the bronze from the Agora 275-25BC, but there are affinities with 2a, so let the range be 300-225BC. This gives the lie to notions that the monument was Roman, but poses another question; do the archaeologists not have access to Morrow's book? If they think its findings are wrong why have they not raised it or used it to squash Palagaia if they believe the research ? Is it because it rules out any Alexander connection?

The coin Amyntoros pictures is an Alexander issue, however and probably from before 325 when the title 'Basileus' or an abbreviation is thought to have become universal, it will be interesting to discover where on the site it was found. Any comment without that information would just seem like explaining the evidence away; explaining the evidence is fine but there is no explanation without 'context'.

[Taphoi]

From this I think the nearest match is definitely 2b, the bronze from the Agora 275-25BC, but there are affinities with 2a, so let the range be 300-225BC.

So what you are saying is: "2b or not 2b, that is the question " Sounds like plagiarism to me

[Taphoi]

The ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ inscribed blocks appear to be examples of the peribolos wall block type that the Millers called "low full thickness" stones. Their exposed faces are 118cm x 32cm and they are 64cm deep. The drafted margins are about 12% of their narrow width (~3.8cm). On this basis, it is most probable that there is indeed not enough room now remaining on the blocks for the missing Π, but unfortunately the error in the measurements is too big to be sure (without seeing a photo showing the left-hand side of one.)
The Millers believed that the architect was using an ancient foot of about 32cm to 32.5cm for his/her dimensions. This means that the low full thickness blocks are 1ft x 2 ft x 3.66ft. However, if they had originally measured 1ft x 2ft x 4ft as ordered for a monument for Hephaistion, then between 10cm to 12cm would have needed to be cut from their length to fit them into the Kasta Mound peribolos. That is exactly the trimming that would have been required to remove one letter width from the inscription. If the trimming had been from the left-hand margin, then the Π of ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ would have been consistently removed from all such re-used blocks bearing that inscription.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[gepd]

From this I think the nearest match is definitely 2b, the bronze from the Agora 275-25BC, but there are affinities with 2a, so let the range be 300-225BC. This gives the lie to notions that the monument was Roman, but poses another question; do the archaeologists not have access to Morrow's book? If they think its findings are wrong why have they not raised it or used it to squash Palagaia if they believe the research ? Is it because it rules out any Alexander connection?

Thanks a lot Agesilaos, that is very interesting. Certainly they will/can be asked for that.

I think 2a is a best match for me, but same with Antonio Corso's arguments, I can't really understand what are the margins for such methods of dating sculptures. E.g., isnt there an overlap of styles for some years? Can one really make an accurate timeline using several statues for reference?

For instance, consider the headless Dionysos statue from the Euonymos Theater, that the excavators use as a reference (e.g. noting similarities in the dress). That is dated to 330-320 BC based on an inscritpion. Photos are below:







You can see the indentation is present, similar to 1f from the book sketches, but at least 10 years off compared to the chronology the book offers.

There is another case dated to about 320 BC (from here: http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the ... name=label):



The indentation appears even larger there, closer to 2a in the book. Also, looking the Amphipolis caryatids and all these examples, I get the impression that the indentation size is driven by how the 2nd finger is sized - that is not reflected in the sketches. Finally, given that Kastas was a grand monument with lots of money spent to it by its sponsors, one may safely assume that it contains some originals that can deviate some years from the average picture.

Nevertheless, I still cant really understand how stylistic comparisons will ever give a dating with accuracy better than a couple of decades, that stands also for the comparisons that A. Corso has shown. One reason I think that the lion and its connection to the Kasta hill makes the best case for a 4th century BC date is that is was not only dated on the basis of style, but also on clumps and other unrelated observations, as Andrew mentioned in another post. Even Pallagia agrees that the lion is 4th century BC. Now, whether its closer to 300 or to 320 BC, I assume it is impossible to say.

Also, again when people say 4th century BC, do they exclude e.g. 295 BC? Are separations so strict? E.g. Ptolemies, Arsinoe etc. sponsored several grand monuments during the early years of 3rd century BC at Samothrace and had also control of Macedonia for a short period. Can that be an alternative?

The only thing that may favor a 320 BC dating is the demonstration by the excavators that the inscription with the candidate ΗΦΑΙΣΤΙΩΝΟΣ predates the final marble processing and that there is no other alternative for the bundle other than ΗΦΑΙΣΤΙΩΝΟΣ.

Even if the monument was intended for Hephaestion, I don't think it was ever used as such for more than few years. Hephaestion is a rare name in the region - I assume if the monument was used as a shrine to Hephaestion for long periods, that name would have been more popular among the Amphipolitans. The inscriptions may only indicate the original intents of the designer. Its use as an Antigonid mausoleum in the later phases, as Agesilaos suggests, is a probable scenario.

That is exactly the trimming that would have been required to remove one letter width from the inscription. If the trimming had been from the left-hand margin, then the Π of ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ would have been consistently removed from all such re-used blocks bearing that inscription.

The sketch of the marbles indicates that they are sure the Π is missing. Photos of the marbles miss the left hand side since it appears they are focused on the area of the inscription, I think it is as simple as that.

Some people noted that in both inscriptions Α+Ρ in ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ are connected as a monogram, ie. ΑΡ ΕΛΑΒΟΝ ..., so ΑΡ may refer to a person.

[Taphoi]

Even if the monument was intended for Hephaestion, I don't think it was ever used as such for more than few years. Hephaestion is a rare name in the region - I assume if the monument was used as a shrine to Hephaestion for long periods, that name would have been more popular among the Amphipolitans. The inscriptions may only indicate the original intents of the designer. Its use as an Antigonid mausoleum in the later phases, as Agesilaos suggests, is a probable scenario.

That is exactly the trimming that would have been required to remove one letter width from the inscription. If the trimming had been from the left-hand margin, then the Π of ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ would have been consistently removed from all such re-used blocks bearing that inscription.

The sketch of the marbles indicates that they are sure the Π is missing. Photos of the marbles miss the left hand side since it appears they are focused on the area of the inscription, I think it is as simple as that.

Some people noted that in both inscriptions Α+Ρ in ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ are connected as a monogram, ie. ΑΡ ΕΛΑΒΟΝ ..., so ΑΡ may refer to a person.

The space between the omicron in ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ and the drafted margin at the bottom edge of the block is equal to the height of the omicron in the sketch of the inscription (upper drawing), but the same space in the real inscription is only a quarter of the height of the omicron. So it is absolutely clear that the real margins around the inscription letters are MUCH smaller than the archaeologists have shown them in their drawings. The drawings are misleading to say the least. What remains to be discovered is whether they are intentionally misleading. The omission of the left-hand margin from the photos hints that there might be a deliberate intention to conceal something from us here.

Whereas the idea of a 2nd monogram is ingenious, it causes more problems than it solves. Firstly, it cannot be a monogram, because the letters touch at different places in the two versions that we have: a monogram would be consistent. And why would this monogram just be two letters when the one at the end is all the letters of the name? And is it not a huge coincidence that the monogram should also be exactly the correct letters for ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ? And the block is short of 4 ancient Macedonian feet by exactly the width of one letter of this inscription. This second monogram idea will not work.

Why expend effort coming up with implausible alternatives to ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ? Why not just ask Antonio Corso on social media to please share a photo of the entire block? If he is as open and obliging as you say, we will soon know the truth of whether the Π has been trimmed off the blocks. If he refuses, we can suspect that he has something to hide.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Taphoi]

In case anyone is having difficulty comparing the actual photos of the inscriptions with the archaeologists' drawings, here is a combined view. To add to the complexity, the archaeologists actually drew three concentric rectangular boundaries around their drawn inscriptions, but even the very faint inner one is much further from the letters (at least in some places) than the real drafted margins on the real blocks. So the drawings cannot be trusted on the positions of the edges of the blocks relative to the inscriptions (although I agree that agesilaos and gepd are within their rights to expect them to be trustworthy).

Parelabons.jpg (160.92 KiB) Viewed 3231 times

[agesilaos]

I cannot see any indentation on either sculpture they both look like 1 d or e to me; but I would agree that this sort of thing necessarily only gives a spread, factors such as whether the site is the hub of artistic development or a provincial backwater also play into things. Morrow is not saying every statue from a set period will display specific features but that there are features which do develop over time. One she mentions is the ubiquity of layered soles in the Hellenistic period, even when not as defined as at Kastas the layers are picked out with incised lines or dots. I have not read the whole book yet so do not want to be definitive yet.

The indented sole does not seem to pre-date c 300BC however and this seems also more prescriptive than forms of drapery as less prone to ‘archaising’ and more a la mode.

Were the Alpha and Rho a monogram then they would have this form,

coin ar.jpg (68.64 KiB) Viewed 3186 times

which is quite common, many names beginning Ar in Greek.

Whilst I agree that a shot of a full block would be more than helpful, I cannot hold with any conspiracy theory here, it is too easily exposed; I think that it is just down to the limitations of a wide shot on the camera used; the second drawing seems to match quite well but the first is fitted onto the same base on a centre line. For me cock-up not conspiracy, I doubt they even considered it important; the letters were the focus, though not closely enough to notice that they did not spell out what they claim!

[Taphoi]

The ΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ inscribed block in the slides from the archaeologists' presentation in September was sitting upside down in the grass in the stone storage area next to the lion of Amphipolis when it was photographed. Perhaps it is still there. Somebody (gepd?) posted some photos of this storage area earlier in this thread. Do they have any photos of this block please? Is it possible for anybody reading this to visit the lion and take a photo of this block please? It is maybe still sitting among the blocks that are 1 foot x 2 foot x 3.66 foot with its 1 foot x 3.66 foot face facing forward with the inscription upside down.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[gepd]

Hi Andrew - I don't stay anywhere close to Amphipolis, but does not matter anyway. The inscribed blocks have been removed from the site, as has been confirmed by the excavators and other visitors in the area. There is more than just inscribed blocks, however, in the collection near the lion. In the 2014 presentation Lefantzis mentioned that there are some geison blocks of the peribolos with cuttings appropriate to accommodate columns - these probably come from the entrance area, which the excavators claim that its extension in front of the sphinxes was originally looking something like this (δίστηλο εν παραστάσι):

http://www.arch.uoa.gr/fileadmin/arch.u ... mg-i08.jpg

Lefantzis has clarified/claimed that reconstruction of the blocks + inscription is accurate and that these have been identified not only in terms of their geometrical characteristics but also from position of clump cuttings etc. The Macedonia + Thrace conference is coming up in a month and they will show many new things, as they claim (http://www.aemth.gr/el/)

[Taphoi]

Hi Andrew - I don't stay anywhere close to Amphipolis, but does not matter anyway. The inscribed blocks have been removed from the site, as has been confirmed by the excavators and other visitors in the area. There is more than just inscribed blocks, however, in the collection near the lion. In the 2014 presentation Lefantzis mentioned that there are some geison blocks of the peribolos with cuttings appropriate to accommodate columns - these probably come from the entrance area, which the excavators claim that its extension in front of the sphinxes was originally looking something like this (δίστηλο εν παραστάσι):

http://www.arch.uoa.gr/fileadmin/arch.u ... mg-i08.jpg

Lefantzis has clarified/claimed that reconstruction of the blocks + inscription is accurate and that these have been identified not only in terms of their geometrical characteristics but also from position of clump cuttings etc. The Macedonia + Thrace conference is coming up in a month and they will show many new things, as they claim (http://www.aemth.gr/el/)

Thanks for the interesting porch reconstruction. Though we are no closer to resolving the ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ mystery. Somebody must have photographed the blocks before they were removed. The best version of the archaeologists' photo is below, so you can see that they took it at the lion site.
As I have explained, it is perfectly possible to reconcile these ΠΑΡΕΛΑΒΟΝ inscribed blocks and their possible Hephaistion monograms with a sensible interpretation of the Kasta Mound that does not try to overturn recorded history. This will be unambiguously clear if it turns out that the Πs could have been removed when the blocks were cut down from 1 foot x 2 foot x 4 foot, which seems to me rather likely. Unfortunately only photos of the entire blocks will clarify this one. Obviously there is no doubt that the blocks are from the peribolos wall and indeed the clamp holes and geometry as well as the visible drafted margins will confirm that: I have never questioned that.
Best regards,
Andrew

Parelabon5sm.jpg (165.65 KiB) Viewed 3010 times

[gepd]

Thanks for the photo Andrew - I think there is not much more to say about the inscriptions until more info is released for them, hopefully soon in the upcoming March meeting.

Apart from that, one may also see many more interesting things in the slides by Lefantzis and Peristeri. E.g.:



That is the diagram of the chambers, the top one showing the side view indicates that the wall structure was different in the first two rooms compared to the third one. I assume this difference is due to the fixes done in the first two chambers, as Lefantzis has mentioned. This is where the marbles are preserved in an excellent state. The marbles in the third (burial) chamber are heavily corroded by humidity etc, seems they have not been changed since the original construction.

There are also remains of a 2nd century BC house in Amphipolis, the painted walls of which imitate wall decoration by marble blocks. The similarity with Kastas is striking and many were proposing that the wall painting refers to the peribolos. However, comparing with the first sketch from the slides, one sees that the layers in the wall imitation of the house correspond exactly to the top four layers of blocks in the first two, renovated chambers of Kastas. This suggests that the house decoration refers to the chambers interior (which were accessible and probably in use in the 2nd century BC), not the peribolos which has different block layering (photo from amphipolis.gr).



I also find interesring this square feature in the mosaic between the two caryatids. It does not appear this was caused by damage from a heavy object - it is a designed feature. Also, if an object - e.g. statue base was there, that paprt would not have been visible, so there was no need to decorate it. Furthermore, a big statue or something else would have blocked the entrance, so I am still curious what could have been there. Maybe it marks the boundaries where a movable object had to be placed? Is there anything similar elsewhere?



Finally, in a much older post we discussed about a huge pyre on Kastas. It was dated to the early Hellenistic era by Lazarides based on ceramics etc. Somebody asked if there were images of the ceramics/pottery etc. Could not find them in my hard disk, but I am sure they looked exactly like that here:

http://collections.culture.gr/ItemPage. ... &KindID=51

Many of these exist in the Thessaloniki museum, all dated in the 4th century BC.

[Taphoi]

Thanks for the photo Andrew - I think there is not much more to say about the inscriptions until more info is released for them, hopefully soon in the upcoming March meeting.

Not sure why they would change their policy of cropping photos unless challenged. If the complete photos vindicate their diagrams, I can think of no reason why they would wish to wait weeks to show them.

Apart from that, one may also see many more interesting things in the slides by Lefantzis and Peristeri... That is the diagram of the chambers, the top one showing the side view indicates that the wall structure was different in the first two rooms compared to the third one. I assume this difference is due to the fixes done in the first two chambers, as Lefantzis has mentioned. This is where the marbles are preserved in an excellent state. The marbles in the third (burial) chamber are heavily corroded by humidity etc, seems they have not been changed since the original construction.

Thanks for the interesting images of some of the presentation slides.

It would have been very difficult to replace the marble facing of the walls once the tomb was built. Not least because the blocks were clamped together. There are many other possible explanations of the varying form of the facing stonework from one chamber to another. They needed to accommodate different room sizes and different decorative schemes. If they were re-using stones cut to a variety of sizes for an abandoned monument to Hephaistion, they may have adapted the stonework in order to re-use it with minimal re-cutting of the stones. The chamber with the grave slot is deeper into the mound and subject to a greater loading from overlying soil. That could be sufficient to explain differences in the state of preservation.

There are also remains of a 2nd century BC house in Amphipolis, the painted walls of which imitate wall decoration by marble blocks. The similarity with Kastas is striking and many were proposing that the wall painting refers to the peribolos. However, comparing with the first sketch from the slides, one sees that the layers in the wall imitation of the house correspond exactly to the top four layers of blocks in the first two, renovated chambers of Kastas. This suggests that the house decoration refers to the chambers interior (which were accessible and probably in use in the 2nd century BC), not the peribolos which has different block layering (photo from amphipolis.gr).

An interesting hypothesis, but there are other possibilities. The house might have been imitating a fourth century building in Amphipolis itself, which was in turn imitating the Kasta Mound. Your hypothesis is also undermined by the fact that the photos show that the stonework in the first chamber is not as regular as the archaeologists have shown in their diagram. For example, the vertical seams in one course do not occur precisely at the midpoint of the blocks in the adjoining course and the blocks in different courses appear to have different lengths (as well as different heights).

Best wishes,
Andrew

amphipolis22.jpg (61.74 KiB) Viewed 2928 times